Pax Vobis said:
True, a heresy can sever a man from the Church. But...only AFTER the CHURCH has declared the man excommunicated, after DUE PROCESS.
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
I'm not a canon lawyer, so I don't understand how all this stuff works. I see your point and i'm not sure how to answer. But, I will say, it requires distinguishment. 1) if a Bishop is truly a heretic, and they are 'ipso facto' excommunicated, then they are cut off from the church and the sacraments. Spiritually, it happens immediately. Yet, if they are not removed from their office by the pope, or forced out by the laity, do they still not retain their position, in a real sense? Spiritually, they receive their penalty immediately but temporally, it requires due process.
2) same example as above, just substitute the pope.
My point is, in all likelihood, the above examples are what we are dealing with today. Spiritually, many of the clerics are heretics. Many of their own choosing. Some have been deceived by false teachings as far back as when they went to parachocial schools and seminaries. Some do not wish to be heretics but are in error nevertheless.
Yet, concentrating only on those who are knowingly heretics, they still hold their offices, do they not? As in the days of Arianism, when 95% of the catholic world was in error, did the heretics keep their offices and continue to spread errors? Yes.
So, practically speaking, what can a layman do in such circuмstances? Should not the Church step in and remove these heretics? Yes. Has she? No. Is there precedence for the laity physically forcing out a heretic bishop? Yes. Is that advisable today? Maybe. Aside from that, do we have any other recourse? Not really.
If the Church won't act, what can we do about it? This is the main issue that divides us. You say that if I continue to recognize him as a pope/bishop, then I somehow am condoning his errors.
I say, I'm not condoning anything, I'm just recognizing that he still has his office IN A TEMPORAL SENSE. I don't condone what he believes or promotes. In fact, I basically ignore him. If he tells me to do something and it's not a sin, I'll follow it. But, when he promotes an error, since he doesn't REQUIRE me to follow it, how it is wrong to ignore it?
In the same way, I wish that the Chuch would remove those who are out-and-out heretics. But She has not. Can I remove them? Maybe but not likely. Can I obey them? Yes, if they give me a valid order. Otherwise, just keep living your faith. They haven't forbid us from doing that. They haven't ordered us to stop, they haven't ordered us to accept error.
These men have lost their offices spiritually but not physically. We must distinguish on this point. How do we deal with this? I think it's a gray area. If the Church has a concrete 'what to do in an emergency 'plan, I'm an unaware of it. If it exists, we wouldn't be having these debates. Since it doesn't exist, we are left to figure it out. The above is my reasoning and I don't see how it's wrong. I wait for the Church to figure it out, for Christ to straighten it out, as the Apostles waited in the upper room after Christ died on the cross.
Pax Vobis said:
Define 'magisterium'. There are two different kinds. The universal (which is "what has always been taught") and the ordinary (which is the current ecclesiastical authorities). The ordinary is ONLY infallible if it AGREES with "what has always been taught".
An even seven:
The Magisterium can never err. I challenge you to find a Church Teaching that uses any adjective whatsoever to describe the Magisterium, which says it can err. If we find an error in any source whatsoever, we know that it is not of the Magisterium.
Again, you fail to distinguish. You should have said: "The UNIVERSAL magisterium can never err."
NORMALLY, the ordinary agrees with the universal, (as in, NORMALLY the church leaders teach the full faith), that's why it's referred to as the 'ordinary and universal magisterium' but, they are distinct - universal (constant, consistent teachings) and ordinary (current churchmen's teachings). The ordinary magisterium is fallible. Look it up on google; plenty of articles on this.
Pax Vobis said:
The point is, if the ordinary, fallible magisterium veers off the doctrinal path, if any catholic knows his faith, he'll see it happen. If something differs, then it's wrong. The understanding of the magisterium is not rocket science.
An even seven:
If the Magisterium were to “veer off the doctrinal path”, then the Church would defect. We know that this is not possible because Jesus Himself granted it immunity from Error. What you are describing, the “if something differs”, is not of the Magisterium. It’s not rocket science.
No, per the above distinction, the ordinary magisterium is fallible. The ordinary magisterium is simply your local bishop and the current pope. They are catholics just like us. They have no special spiritual understanding of doctrine and no infused wisdom. They have years of learning at a seminary school and they have the graces of their vocation - that's the only difference between them and us. They are men just like us. They can lose their souls just like us. Infallibility only belongs to the pope, when he chooses to use it; and when he does, we'll all know it because it is a formal declaration.
The pope is not infallible when he gives interviews to news reporters, nor when he has tea with heads of state, nor during papal audiences, or papal speeches, or when he writes encylicals, or issues papal bulls, or even when he confirms councils. He is only infallible when he follows the 4 specific REQUIREMENTS laid out by Vatican I.
Pax Vobis said:
One must be subject to the Pope in all things, save sin. The novelties of V2 are not catholic, therefore they are rejected. V2 does not follow the universal magisterium, therefore it's rejected. V2 does not deal with dogma, or infallibility, or church law. It never claimed to. Anyone that follows the church leaders into error does so at their own volition. No one in Rome is forcing them into error.
An even seven:
If the VII “popes” were true Popes, then the universal Magisterium surely failed and is defect. There is ample proof that Paul VI and John XXIII definitely intended it to be infallible and commanded all those subject to them that VII is to be religiously observed by all; not just those who feel like it.
The universal/solemn/extraordinary magisterium has not been changed. It cannot change. No V2 popes have issued any infallible statements. Paul VI and John XXIII never intended to use their infallibility. How do I know this? Because they didn't follow the guidelines of Vatican I. Nowhere have they started any speech or docuмent with "We declare, say and define that...by our apostolic authority...etc" (this is just one requirement. See Vatican 1 for more requirements)
Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36802 times)